AN unorthodox weather watcher who uses the moon and the tides to create long-term forecasts is celebrating after his predictions for the Irish summer have largely come to pass.

New Zealander Ken Ring correctly predicted the summer's mini-heatwave at the start of June and was on the money when he calculated that July would be a washout.

His achievement is all the more remarkable as some of the experts have got their long-term forecasts spectacularly wrong. The UK Met Office was left with egg on its face after trumpeting a "barbecue summer" in April only for the UK to see its wettest July on record.

Mr Ring is an Auckland-based professional weather watcher and made his predictions about this summer's weather on Marian Finucane's show on RTE Radio 1.

While his novel means of forecasting have been greeted with some scepticism, he was largely on the mark.

"I think I've done quite well, or at least the farmers tell me so," he said. "Of course, weather forecasting is not an exact science and so the best we can come up with are trends that have a few days' leeway on either side. For instance, I did say summer in Ireland for 2009 was never going to be all that hot -- maximum temperatures may not exceed 25 degrees."

What Ken said:

June: Many areas will be dry for the first half and temperatures will be above 20C, unsettled for the second half.

July: Mainly wet month for all. Parts of the north, west and east will have chances of dry days only between July 12 and 17.

August: A wet month for all. The east has a chance of dry windows from August 4 to 9 and 21 to 25. The south will see some sun from 25 to 30.

What happened:

June: First week was largely dry and sunny with temperatures well above normal. Second week was cool and windy with occasionally heavy rain. Rest of the month was unsettled with showers and some thundery downpours.

July: Wettest July for over 50 years in many places. Very wet at some weather stations in the east and west on July 13 and 14, but July 12, 15, 16 and 17 saw practically no rain.

August: Started out very wet, particularly in the south. Almost a perfect score for August 4 to 9 in the east.

Two new sunspot groups appeared on March 1, numbered 1052 and 1053. The total number of sunspot groups appearing over the last month is eleven.

Looking at our 3-month moving average of daily sunspot numbers, the latest for December-January-February is 22.4, for the period centered on January. The average daily sunspot number for the month of February was 31. The fact that this is higher than the latest 3-month average is a welcome trend.

The current 3-month average centered on January 2010 is very close to the 3-month average centered on January 2007, which was 22.7. That moving average has not been as high since. In fact, the closest it has been was February 2007, at 18.5. It was all downhill from there, and that average was below 10 from September 2007 through October 2009. It now looks like we saw three minimums, which is why it was so easy to err when trying to locate the bottom. Several times we hit some low number, decided that things were improving, and then a few months later hit it again.

The three minimums were 2.97 in October 2007, 1.1 in August 2008, and 1.5 in March 2009.

The ARRL International SSB DX Contest is this weekend, and it isn't really certain whether there will be sunspots visible through the whole of the contest. Sunspot groups 1051, 1052 and 1053 will soon rotate over the Sun's western limb. Looking at images from the STEREO spacecraft ( http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/), there is a magnetically complex area visible in the upper left quadrant facing Earth, but no sunspot has emerged there. Looking beyond the horizon the only really active area (bright white contrasted against green) appears to be emerging from the far side blind spot in the southern hemisphere. That could be five days away from emergence over the eastern horizon.

The blind spot of the STEREO mission incrementally recedes. On March 1, 88.1% of the Sun was visible to the craft, on April 1, 88.5% should be visible, and 90% visibility will occur some time in June. For the first of December 2010, January 2011 and February 2011 visibility should be 97.4, 98.7 and 99.8%. After that, the two spacecraft continue their journey, but the blind spot shifts to the Earth-side of the Sun, which of course we can see directly.

Earlier this week the prediction for the weekend showed higher activity. Go to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/forecasts/45DF.html and click on March 1. Note the solar flux values for today, tomorrow and Sunday (March 5-7) show predicted solar flux at 84, 86 and 90, with flux staying at 90 through March 13.

Now click on March 4, which was the latest report available by the time this bulletin was written early Friday morning, and for the same period it has shifted way down to 82 straight through March 12. You can go back to that site to get the updated forecast after 2000z (but often after 2100z) today, and on subsequent days.

The same forecast shows quiet geomagnetic conditions with planetary A index of 5 until March 15 and 16, when it rises slightly to 8 and 7. Geophysical Institute Prague predicts quiet conditions for March 5 through 11.

K9LA pointed out a problem with the description of effective sunspot numbers from nwra.com in last week's Propagation Forecast Bulletin ARLP008.

At http://www.nwra.com/spawx/ssne24.html we see a plot of SSNe, or effective sunspot number, which is derived from multiple ionospheric sounders. The ionosonde data used is foF2, which is the critical frequency of the F2 layer. It is the maximum frequency that can be reflected back from the F2 layer by a vertically incident beam. The smoother heavy line in the upper SSNe graph uses 24 hours of foF2 data, and the lighter and less smooth line uses 6 hours of data. Using a longer period of data makes the 24 hour line smoother, because it behaves more like a moving average, responding less to short duration changes.

This page, http://www.nwra.com/spawx/ssne.html gives a more formal definition of the derivation of effective sunspot number. http://www.nwra.com/spawx/comp.html shows a comparison of SSNe, actual observed sunspot number, and SSNf, a sunspot number derived from the 10.7 cm solar flux. The formula toward the bottom shows * as multiplication, and SSNf**2 I believe means SSNf raised to the second power, a way of showing exponents using conventional characters.

The formula shows a relationship between solar flux and SSNf, but is not set up to solve for SSNf using solar flux. So to test it I entered some sunspot numbers into a spreadsheet, and then calculated 10.7 cm flux using the formula. The relationship came out roughly in line with the same values entered into W6ELprop, which always shows flux values when entering sunspot numbers, and sunspot numbers when flux values are used.

W6ELprop introduces a variation based on date, because of our elliptical orbit around the Sun. At http://tinyurl.com/ks8tvn you can see a column for observed solar flux, and another for adjusted solar flux. The adjusted value factors for variations due to Earth's orbit. Note certain dates when the adjusted and observed values are equal. Using those dates with W6ELprop and entering sunspot numbers results in flux values equal to data produced by the formula referenced above.

A fascinating guest, Ken Ring- "Weatherman" forecasts weather months on advance
whilst other Meteorologists claim that the weather patterns cannot be forecasted
more than 5 days in advance. Forecasts are based on the likely pattern of atmospheric-tidal
movements, winds and wind changes plus high and low pressure zones based on
correlations of past, and future lunar orbits and phases. Alsohttp://www.mathman.co.nz/

The Moon has about one sixth of the Earth’s gravitational force. From only a couple of hundred thousand miles away, changes in the Moon's orbital patterns are going to have major effects on Earth. Simply stated, changes in the Moon’s movement changes our weather.. ... more
http://predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=16

A basic look at weather cycles

The experts called 18 May a once-in-100-year event. The Tauranga rains caused millions of dollars worth of damage. But half a month before on 3 May in the same place there had been another so-called once-in-100 year dumping. Is this all predictable? If so..what is the cycle..? ... more
http://predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=31

Holes In The Ozone-Layer?

Ozone is replenished every day worldwide wherever the sun meets warm rising air. There is a big area over the South Pole with less ozone than elsewhere. But this hole is gone in December, when NZ has its summer. So why all the fuss about ozone-depletion? more
http://predictweather.com/ozone%20depletion/index.asp

Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won.

In almost every newspaper around the world and at least once a week, some report surfaces suggesting we stay worried in the light of latest figures and analyses. Not only is Global Warming occurring, we are assured, but it is now accelerating at some alarming rate and pretty soon the poles will have all melted, the sealevels will have risen and all low-lying atolls and seaside villages will be covered over with this calamitous rising tide. And apparently this gigantic catastrophe is due to human behaviour.

We are informed that if our wicked CFC and CO2-producing ways continue, we will be doomed as a civilisation. Today we are so buffeted by what is put forth as irrefutable evidential science as to the nature of the so-called problem, that we don't even think to question it on any basic level. What is still essentially viewpoints and nothing more, based on tiny sample data and extrapolated, is now promoted as scientific fact, regardless of the lack of real evidence. The voices of the many diligent scientists calling for real hard evidence are drowned out by those who have the ear of a worldwide media hungry for sensational and emotive headlines. ...more
http://predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

---------------------------------------------
would love to hear Kens thoughts on this
---------------------------------------------

Spacecraft to Slam into the Moon
By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 07 March 2006

Scientists are plotting out a "crash course" in learning what happens when a European lunar probe slams into the Moon. The European Space Agency's (ESA) SMART-1 spacecraft-now circling the Moon-is headed for a planned early September impact with Earth's celestial neighbor.

The ESA probe would plow into the lunar surface, giving it a glancing blow as it speeds in at nearly 5,000 miles per hour (2 kilometers per second).

SMART-1 is Europe's first robotic lunar mission. The name SMART stands for Small Mission for Advanced Research in Technology

The spacecraft was launched on September 27, 2003. Making use of its ion-propulsion engine to slowly nudge it outward from Earth, the probe powered its way into lunar orbit on November 15, 2004.

Outfitted with miniaturized instruments, SMART-1's goal has been to gauge key chemical elements in the lunar surface, as well as look into the theory that the Moon was formed following the violent collision of a smaller planet with Earth long ago.

ESA's lunar probe completes a loop around the Moon every five hours-but that's about to end later this year.

Rehearsal mode

Engineers and scientists are now targeting SMART-1 for possible impact on the Moon around September 1-2. The current uncertainty range for the exact time of impact is 15 hours.

At the end of June, SMART-1 is slated to carry out two maneuvers. These will fine-tune the exact time of impact. Those slight thrust firings will lead to the spacecraft flying over the Moon at its lowest point at below186 miles (300 kilometers) in altitude.

In early July, the plan calls for assessing the success of the maneuver and determining the spacecraft's orbit and expected impact time. Later that month, the probe will zip as close as 124 miles (200 kilometers) from the barren lunar landscape.

In early August, SMART-1 will make an overflight of its eventual impact site, racing over that area at just 75 miles (120 kilometers) height in what's termed as "rehearsal" mode for the early September run-in with the Moon.

According to Bernard Foing, ESA SMART-1 project scientist, an inventory is being made of the composition and mechanical properties of the spacecraft-including aluminum, copper, titanium, and other materials, as well as the probe's remaining hydrazine fuel.

That data will be used to support observations of what is kicked up from the Moon itself on impact, contrasted to bits, pieces, and fuel tossed into the mix due to SMART-1's high-speed slap.

Boom and bust finale

Here on Earth, sky watchers worldwide are getting ready for the projected September 1-2 lunar boom and bust finale of SMART-1.

Foing told SPACE.com that he is now engaged in assembling a "coordinated campaign" of ground-based observations. This activity would support SMART-1 measurements and monitor the artificial crash that mimics in a small way, an asteroid or comet hit on the Moon.

Numbers of observatories around the world have indicated interest in watching the outcome from SMART-1's collision with the Moon, Foing has reported.

At impact, the ESA spacecraft will weigh a little over 628 pounds (285 kilograms), punching the Moon at a grazing incidence near 37 degrees south latitude. The near-side impact is timed so that it will be illuminated to assist in observations from Earth.

A current orbit simulation of the SMART-1 impact for September 2 is at lunar longitude 44.54 degrees West and 36.22 South in Lacus Excellentiae, 10 degrees south of Mare Humorum. A far more refined target point will come as the event draws closer.

Crater-making crash

Back on July 31, 1999, the Moon was on the receiving end of NASA's Lunar Prospector.

That farewell fall of space hardware struck within a crater near the lunar south pole-in an attempt to detect water ice stirred up by the wallop. No visible debris plume was reported.

According to Foing, the hope is that those Earth-based observers intending to take part in September's thump of the Moon can make pre-hit predictions of SMART-1's impact magnitude, cloud ejecta dynamics, exospheric effects and other observable manifestations brought about by the crash.

Coordinated measurements by observers here on Earth are high on the priority list, Foing noted. Impact observations would include: Infrared imaging of thermal flash; visible/infrared imaging of ejected clouds; hydrazine flame detection; post-characterization of ejecta; as well as exospheric effects if lunar material is blasted high off the Moon's surface.

In addition, Foing said, there is also intent to conduct follow up searches for the crater produced by SMART-1's crash into the Moon via the sensor eyes of future, follow-on lunar orbiters.

I'm not so sure I agree that "Civilisation" doesn't have a negative effect as regards to global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer, among other environmental issues.

A long time ago I used to go door to door for Greenpeace and one of the issues I liked to talk to folks about was the ozone layer. Of course, we were all mostly young, idealistic "kids" trying to save the planet and were relying on info provided by Greenpeace. What I remember as the most compelling reason to stop or drastically cut down on the cfc's was that it took 15 years for the stuff to even reach the ozone layer, so that even if we stopped all cfc production, we would still have 15 more years of damage occurring. I also remember that we were told that the ozone layer DOES replenish itself. So it was one issue where it seemed that if we just as Rage Against the Machine said, "Quit it Now", we could clean up this one puppy.

I am no scientist, in fact science doesn't come easy to me. My forte is social theory. Yet, I still believe it is dangerous to not cut back drastically on man made pollution. Even if global warming is a naturally occurring phenonmenon, it behooves us to limit our influence in speeding up such a situation. Isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Excellent!
Ken's presentation resonates with such simple, elegant common sense it just makes me laugh out loud. So true, Fintan, about how DUMB we've BECOME.

I've always wondered about Stonehenge - that makes such perfect sense why it would constantly be rebuilt age after age. Everybody want's to know when it's gonna rain.

I laugh about the History channel shows I've sat through covering the 'Mysteries of Stonehenge'. Jeez. What knuckleheads.

I also love the fact that even the ancients needed moats to keep stoners and teenage partiers off of their 'gear'. Ha! I've always fantasized about smoking a doob at the Henge - nice to know it's part of an ancient tradition.

In addition to the weather info, the articles on Ken's site were quite informative - now I can finally place 'Global Warming' and 'Ozone Depletion' right there in the round file next to 'Peak Oil' and 'Voting'.

"Ring is surprisingly accurate and although I measured an 80% success rate in his predictions, these statistics were a lot better than the official forecasters' accuracy. Most impressive was Ring's foretelling of severe gale force winds(which in fact reached hurricane force on our Apata farm)where the regular forecasters predicted fine weather and light winds!"
- Bay of Plenty Times, 10/2/01

"Being able to predict weather ten years ahead must be a world first.. you've put your reputation on the line.."
- resident meteorologist on Canterbury-On-Air Radio, 2/3/01

Hi Ken, great site. Heard about you from sea kayak net work 2 yrs ago. your predictions were stunning. Lost track of you. Staff heard about you on radio. We would like to link to the site, is that ok? www.canoeandcamping.co.nzCheers Wayne

Ken, you predicted two of the frosts to the day here in Alexandra, but they were one degree light. Not bad. You had predicted two other frosts that didn't eventuate but they were still cold nights. Thanks, much appreciated.
Owen (Wai-Ora Apiaries)

Ken, before I first read your web site I was a sceptic. You will be pleased to know that I am a complete convert now. I also love your arguments on global warming because not only did you explain what was happening but also where the motivation comes from for the global warming theorists. Unfortunately everything comes down to the mighty dollar. Scare money is definitely big. I am going sailing around the Hauraki Gulf from 14th to 18th March. Any predictions?
Regards Kevan.

Dear Ken Ring, have been watching you website predictions for quite some time . You are very very good.
Kind regards Lew & Marilyn.

Also Ken has posted an excellent rebuttal of the attack article
on the NZ Aukland Astronomy website (LINK)

Quote:

Witch-hunting returns

In a series of three articles posted widely on the internet, the Auckland Astronomical Society has tried its best to demolish Moon science. In lieu of right of reply in the pages of the Society's magazine, the misquotes and astronomical mistakes can only be posted here. We do wonder what their problem is.....

Excepts from Keir's one-sided attack and this website's responses are posted below.

His theory that lunar gravity is the main cause of the weather is flawed because it is based on a poor understanding of gravity.
Main cause? A sloppy misquote, it is not my claim. I say the Moon is the trigger, not the cause, of weather events. The main cause is the Sun, impacting on the planets' orbits which in turn cause solar activity, which in turn finds reflection in the Moon's orbits which in turn impact upon water, land and air on Earth. However the Sun is also impacted upon by the Celestial Centre in the Milky Way, so exact main causes are probably untraceable.

The theory claims that when syzygy coincides closely with perigee, as it does two or three times a year, the double compounding of the gravitational effect guarantees that very destructive weather will occur somewhere.
Incorrect. Syzygy and perigee occurred eight times in 2005. Nothing is guaranteed, and apogee behaves like perigee at times.

Firstly, the claimed correlations between weather events and Moon position are tenuous and probably spurious.
Only tenuous and spurious if one has not investigated it. A proper scientist would do some experimentation..

Secondly, the physical forces invoked could not have the supposed effects – they are so weak that they would be completely overridden by other more powerful forces.
Therefore the oceans should not rise and fall tidally but they do. Air is much easier to move than water.

The tidal force from lunar gravity raises Earth’s oceans only about half a metre. A half-metre tidal bulge in Earth’s oceans is a miniscule amount in terms of the depth of the oceans (about 4000 metres mean depth).
Incorrect according to NASA, who say the mean depth of the oceans is only 1 km. Also in discussing tides we are not talking about height but volume of water. And even if we were only talking about changes in height, a half meter in 1000=0.05%. Given that the atmosphere extends 800km-900km, that gives a 40km air tide differential.

As Newton taught us, gravity is a function of mass and distance. The mutual gravitational force of attraction between two masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This relationship dictates extremely weak forces in the case of small masses or great distances.
Would this be Sir Isaac Newton the alchemist and astrologer? Perhaps you should go back to Newton's Principia. In it he discusses the force corridors of planets and their angles to locations on Earth, and the points that nullify Earth's gravity and allow for tidal lifting to occur unimpeded. Newton was writing in astrological physics.

A comparable variation in atmospheric tide would not be detectable..
Not true. Why do weather balloons float higher on New moon and Full moon days? That there is a "king tide" in the air at the same time of month as in the ocean has been detected and proven and itself proves atmospheric tides.

The existence of atmospheric tides is problematic. The few studies that claim to have detected them are not conclusive.
They are only problematic to meteorologists who want to deny the moon has a daily effect on the height of the air. See Appleby and Weekes work on shortwave broadcast signals, in 1939, which established the idea of airtides. The atmospheric tides are considered large enough to have to be factored out (see Australian Aviators Manual) when talking about barometric pressure. If the airtides were puny why bother factoring them out? You can't have it both ways. Either they are large enough to be of influence or not.

Unlike the ocean tides they could not be observed easily.
Agree, and that's the problem, but that doesn't prove their nonexistence. Given that both water and air are movable fluids with a great deal of mass, it would be much more weird if the moon had absolutely no effect on the air but did have an effect on the water. What would be the mechanism whereby the moon reached through the air to pull the ocean water up but on the way left the water in the air alone?

Are Ken Ring’s weather predictions accurate? His special boast is that, using the Moon’s position, he can do something mainstream forecasters can’t – very long-term forecasting, as far into the future as you like. His annual Almanac gives daily forecasts for 57 New Zealand towns for a year, including monthly rainfall estimates. I have not done a rigorous analysis of his forecasts and I don’t propose to.
But I have just been criticised for not doing such an analysis. Without analysing properly there is no basis on which to pass judgement on my work. Such analyses have been done, by a secondary school science project for Motat, by Massey University and by Carl Smith in Australia. Currently accuracy seems to be running about 87-91%.

In the same interview Ken Ring said that there is a pre-Maori stone circle in Northland with the same dimensions as Stonehenge. My articles in this Journal, July and August 2003, deal with that fabrication.
Well, there is. I have personally surveyed it. A NASA team was also surveying it. This is perhaps another area that the writer has not understood because basic scholarship is lacking. Readers might wish to view www.celticnz.co.nz

I should have realised that Ken would write a rebuttal to that article. Thank you Fintan for finding it - I should have looked but I was too busy running around the net looking for confirmation of his views as they rung my bell very loudly.

It's similar to a story we had here in aussieland. A farmer, .Peter Andrews, had an idea of how rivers worked and 30 years ago set about testing his theories working on his race horse breeding property. He ran up against all the established knowledge - The Hydrologists, The Lands Board, the weed guys, the bar tender in the pub, ....everyone was against him. He fought them for 30 years and last year his work was finally recognised and he has now been praised and accepted by his opponents after all these years, because he was right!

"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

Well Ken appears to have been correct when he suggests that Huricanes/cyclones develop after a full moon.

Well the last full moon was on the 14th - a couple of days later Cyclone Larry started to develop near Vanuatu and headed for the Queensland coast. Yesterday 20th it hit the coast as a category 5 cyclone - the most powerful to ever hit Australia they are now saying.

There is also another one coming up behind and due in a few days from now.

Unfortunately his weather prediction for Cairns on his site didn't mention the cyclone coming.

well his prediction for Brisbane in April 2006 has eventuated. His prediction of heavy rain 350mm in mid April just didn't happen - in fact April was well below average rainfall through April.

Quote:

Brisbane in 2006
Overall a wetter year but only because of a likely event in the third week in April - widespread heavy and flood rain expected in the SE of the State and adjacent inland causing widespread flooding and damage to crops. Brisbane is going to have slightly drier than average months until April - it'll be between 12th-22nd, and Brisbane alone may get about 350mm in that week. Usually you only get 100mm for the whole of April but this April's rain count may be over 400mm. Without that week Brisbane would have a drier year overall. May may be a drier month, as only about half the average rain may arrive. June and July may be wetter than average too but not by as much. August could be very dry, September, wetter than average, October, just about no rain at all, November, a drier than normal month and December, a wetter month also.
So this will be a drier summer, then a wetter autumn because of April, a wetter winter, overall a drier spring despite a wetter September. Next summer will be a drier summer despite a wetter December. So your wetter months this year should turn out to be April, June, July, Sept and Dec. Hail may come in May in Port Curtis, again there in June. Frosts should start in the Warrego on May 23,
the Granite belt about May 31, then Warrego on June 4 extending to Maranoa, Darling Downs and Western Moreton, and Maranoa on June 10, then a bit on Darling Downs on June 11.

He also missed the Category 5 Cyclone that ripped through far north Queensland and made it all the way to south of Darwin - Very destructive.